5 ms·

The problem is that easy availability of guns amplify the destruction that can be perpetuated by mentally unstable individuals. A similar incident happened in C

The problem is that easy availability of guns amplify the destruction that can be perpetuated by mentally unstable individuals. A similar incident happened in China today where 22 kids were stabbed by one perpetrator but not one had life threatening injuries. What if Walmart China sold guns like the US one does? How many innocent kids would be dead today? > How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation of the senseless acts of a few? Liberty? What about the liberty not to get randomly shot down and you or your loved ones' life taken away from you and the people who know you? Isn't the gift of life the supreme liberty taking precedence over the need of some to worship guns? The ability to take away someone right and liberty to live at a moment's notice borders on a superpower and should be handed out very sparingly to those who absolutely need it to do their job.

notdrunkatall 14y ago
The right to bear arms isn't some trivial notion to be tossed aside when it is no longer convenient to maintain. It is a fundamental right that was given to the people by those who founded our government that we would be able to fight back against that same government were it to ever become oppressive. Every day, we increasingly see the infringement of our civil liberties, and it seems obvious that the desire of the government to continue broadening its scope of power at our expense is not likely to abate any time soon. I ask you: if this trend continues, where do you think it leads? Our guns are our final check against the formation of a potentially oppressive regime; they are our assurance that we will never become helpless, that we will always have the capability to fight if fighting ever becomes necessary. Though it is certainly a great tragedy that these children have died today, how much greater were the tragedies throughout human history that resulted from the excessive centralization of power and a populace that was unable to fight against it? You think that human nature has changed in the last half century; you think that something like that cannot happen again, that it won't happen here? People have not changed; sociopaths still seek power, and when they find it, if the masses have no way of fighting back, they will find themselves dealing with problems many orders of magnitude more horrific than the occasional school shooting. I am familiar with all of the arguments for disarming the people of the United States, and they are all fundamentally flawed, because nothing is worse than being at the mercy of tyrants.
- econnors 14y ago
  The problem with this argument is that guns would do little to counteract an oppressive government. What about the airplanes, the navy, the artillery that our military possess? Guns are hardly a "final check against the formation of a potentially oppressive regime."
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    Afghanistan.
    - nerfhammer 14y ago
      It's a foreign occupying power there. Very different record.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        It is different in many other ways too. For example, the people American soldiers are shooting at (for the most part) speak another language, have a different religion, have a different culture, and look different.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  The laws made more sense during the 1700s than now. No one really has any chance now. You discount the entire industrial and technological progress that happened in the past 200 years.
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    I assume you're making the argument that a ragtag bunch of rebels wouldn't have a chance standing against an empire armed to the teeth with the latest war machines. If that is indeed the case, have you been paying attention to the news for the last decade?
    - 14y ago

notdrunkatall 14y ago

The right to bear arms isn't some trivial notion to be tossed aside when it is no longer convenient to maintain. It is a fundamental right that was given to the people by those who founded our government that we would be able to fight back against that same government were it to ever become oppressive. Every day, we increasingly see the infringement of our civil liberties, and it seems obvious that the desire of the government to continue broadening its scope of power at our expense is not likely to abate any time soon. I ask you: if this trend continues, where do you think it leads? Our guns are our final check against the formation of a potentially oppressive regime; they are our assurance that we will never become helpless, that we will always have the capability to fight if fighting ever becomes necessary. Though it is certainly a great tragedy that these children have died today, how much greater were the tragedies throughout human history that resulted from the excessive centralization of power and a populace that was unable to fight against it? You think that human nature has changed in the last half century; you think that something like that cannot happen again, that it won't happen here? People have not changed; sociopaths still seek power, and when they find it, if the masses have no way of fighting back, they will find themselves dealing with problems many orders of magnitude more horrific than the occasional school shooting. I am familiar with all of the arguments for disarming the people of the United States, and they are all fundamentally flawed, because nothing is worse than being at the mercy of tyrants.

econnors 14y ago
The problem with this argument is that guns would do little to counteract an oppressive government. What about the airplanes, the navy, the artillery that our military possess? Guns are hardly a "final check against the formation of a potentially oppressive regime."
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  Afghanistan.
  - nerfhammer 14y ago
    It's a foreign occupying power there. Very different record.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      It is different in many other ways too. For example, the people American soldiers are shooting at (for the most part) speak another language, have a different religion, have a different culture, and look different.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
The laws made more sense during the 1700s than now. No one really has any chance now. You discount the entire industrial and technological progress that happened in the past 200 years.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  I assume you're making the argument that a ragtag bunch of rebels wouldn't have a chance standing against an empire armed to the teeth with the latest war machines. If that is indeed the case, have you been paying attention to the news for the last decade?
  - 14y ago